DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12 were previously pending. Claim 8 has been amended. Claims 1-6, 9-10, and 12 have been canceled. Claims 13-18 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 8 and 13-18 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/15/2025 has been entered.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saikyo (US 2019/0263412 A1) in view of Nath (US 2017/0123430 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Saikyo discloses a travel control apparatus for a subject vehicle (see at least Fig. 1, [0030] – vehicle 12 includes a vehicle control device 10), comprising: a processor (see at least [0040] - processor) configured to, in a case where an adjacent lane is a lane in which only a specific type of vehicle can travel and the subject vehicle is the specific type of vehicle that can travel in the adjacent lane, determine whether to autonomously control a lane change to the adjacent lane (see at least Figs. 3-6, [0056, 0060, 0091] – lane recognition unit 72 recognizes the lane types of each of the lanes… confirms the lane type of the adjacent lane L2… depending on the lane type permit or not permit execution of the lane change of the host vehicle 12 from the host vehicle lane L1 to the adjacent lane L2… by prohibiting or suppressing the lane change to the car pool lane 102 a, it is possible to prevent the host vehicle 12 from inadvertently making a lane change into the car pool lane 102 a using AD or ADAS) based on whether a current assist level of autonomous travel control can be maintained if the lane change is made autonomously (see at least Figs. 3-6, [0056, 0060, 0080] – whether a lane change can be made by way of automated driving).
Saikyo does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the subject vehicle is controlled to make the lane change autonomously in situations where the current assist level of the autonomous travel control can be maintained, and the subject vehicle is controlled to remain in a current lane in situations where the current assist level of the autonomous travel control would need to be decreased for the subject vehicle to make the lane change autonomously.
Nath, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: determine whether to autonomously control a lane change to the adjacent lane based on whether a current assist level of autonomous travel control can be maintained if the lane change is made autonomously (see at least Fig. 4, [0029-0040]), wherein the subject vehicle is controlled to make the lane change autonomously in situations where the current assist level of the autonomous travel control can be maintained (see at least Fig. 4, [0034-0036] – command the host vehicle 100 to adjust to the new target vehicle… lane change maneuver is completed), and the subject vehicle is controlled to remain in a current lane in situations where the current assist level of the autonomous travel control would need to be decreased for the subject vehicle to make the lane change autonomously (see at least Fig. 4, [0033, 0037-0039] – host vehicle 100 aborts the lane change maneuver if no new vehicles are detected in the adjacent lane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Nath into the invention of Saikyo with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent sudden acceleration when there is no new in-path target vehicle to track when changing lanes, which can be discomforting for the driver (Nath – [0007]). This prevent the vehicle from autonomously performing a lane change to the adjacent lane when there is no new target vehicle to track or track with respect to latitudinal/direction and longitudinal/speed movements, thereby improving safety and comfort.
Regarding claim 13, Saikyo discloses wherein the specific type of vehicle that can travel in the adjacent lane is a carpool vehicle (see at least [0050]).
Regarding claim 14, Saikyo discloses wherein the specific type of vehicle that can travel in the adjacent lane is a taxi (see at least [0050]).
If there is any doubt as to whether Saikyo discloses that the vehicle can be a taxi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have allowed taxis to drive in the adjacent lane since Saikyo’s adjacent lane is meant for vehicles in which two or three or more people are riding as passengers. Taxis are known to carry multiple passengers for transportation services and therefore would be obvious to include in the type of vehicle allowed to travel in the adjacent lane.
Regarding claim 15, Saikyo does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein decreasing the current assist level of the autonomous travel control increases manual operation by a driver of the subject vehicle.
Nath, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein decreasing the current assist level of the autonomous travel control increases manual operation by a driver of the subject vehicle (see at least Fig. 4, [0006, 0033, 0037-0039] – by “following” the target vehicle the host vehicle may set its speed and direction based on the target vehicle… host vehicle 100 aborts the lane change maneuver if no new vehicles are detected in the adjacent lane).
The motivation to combine Saikyo and Nath is the same as in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 16, Saikyo does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the processor determines whether the current assist level of the autonomous travel control can be maintained by determining whether conditions for autonomous steering control remain satisfied after the lane change.
Nath, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the processor determines whether the current assist level of the autonomous travel control can be maintained by determining whether conditions for autonomous steering control remain satisfied after the lane change (see at least Fig. 4, [0006, 0033, 0037-0039] – by “following” the target vehicle the host vehicle may set its speed and direction based on the target vehicle… host vehicle 100 aborts the lane change maneuver if no new vehicles are detected in the adjacent lane).
The motivation to combine Saikyo and Nath is the same as in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saikyo in view of Nath and Fukui (US 2023/0182764 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Saikyo does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to, in a hands-off mode of the autonomous travel control of the subject vehicle, determine whether to use inter-vehicle distance control or constant speed control based on whether a preceding vehicle is detected in a traveling lane of the subject vehicle, wherein the inter-vehicle distance control is used in situations where the preceding vehicle is detected in the traveling lane of the subject vehicle, and the constant speed control is used in situations where the preceding vehicle is not detected in the traveling lane of the subject vehicle.
Fukui, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the processor is further configured to, in a hands-off mode of the autonomous travel control of the subject vehicle, determine whether to use inter-vehicle distance control or constant speed control based on whether a preceding vehicle is detected in a traveling lane of the subject vehicle (see at least [0042, 0053, 0055, 0058, 0098] – automation level 2 includes a hands-off mode… automated driving at level 2 or lower includes an ACC control unit… the ACC control unit executes an ACC control (Adaptive Cruise Control) to perform constant-speed traveling of the subject vehicle at a target speed or following travel with respect to the preceding vehicle), wherein the inter-vehicle distance control is used in situations where the preceding vehicle is detected in the traveling lane of the subject vehicle, and the constant speed control is used in situations where the preceding vehicle is not detected in the traveling lane of the subject vehicle (see at least [0055, 0058] – the ACC control unit executes an ACC control (Adaptive Cruise Control) to perform constant-speed traveling of the subject vehicle at a target speed or following travel with respect to the preceding vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Fukui into the invention of Saikyo with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to provide certain levels of automation which do not require gripping of the steering wheel. The use of ACC is known (as demonstrated by Fukui) to provide constant speed control when no preceding vehicle is detected and to control inter-vehicle distance when a preceding vehicle is detected. Fukui demonstrates the use of ACC in a hands-off mode. Doing so eliminates the need for a driver to manually grip the steering wheel during ACC when used at automation levels that also provide automated steering features or functions, and thereby improves comfort for the driver.
Regarding claim 18, Saikyo does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the hands-off mode of the autonomous travel control comprises autonomous steering control being activated even in situations where hands of a driver are released from a steering wheel.
Fukui, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the hands-off mode of the autonomous travel control comprises autonomous steering control being activated even in situations where hands of a driver are released from a steering wheel (see at least [0042, 0053, 0056] – automation level 2 includes a hands-off mode… automated driving at level 2 or lower includes an ACC control unit, an LTA control unit… the LTA control unit may cause the vehicle control ECU 70 to perform the steering control thereby to perform the LTA control).
The motivation to combine Saikyo and Fukui is the same as in the rejection of claim 17 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4 filed 10/15/2025, with respect to the requirement for Unity of Invention have been fully considered and are persuasive. The requirement for Unity of Invention has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-982. The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Kato (US 2020/0307595 A1) is directed to a vehicle control device includes a first inputter, a second inputter, a mode controller configured to, when the first inputter is operated by a user, determine a driving mode of a vehicle as a first mode, and when the second inputter is operated by the user in the first mode, switch the driving mode from the first mode to a second mode, and a driving controller configured to control at least one of a steering and speed of the vehicle, and the driving controller is configured to control a steering and speed of the vehicle and prohibit change of a path of the vehicle when the driving mode is the first mode, and control a steering and speed of the vehicle and change of the path of the vehicle is allowed when the driving mode is the second mode.
Kato (US 2021/0276559 A1) is directed to a vehicle control device that executes an automatic lane change from the first lane to the second lane. In the case that a traffic regulating object that regulates passage of traffic in the third lane or on the road shoulder is placed in the third lane or on the road shoulder, and an external environment recognition unit recognizes the traffic regulating object, a lane change control unit restricts the automatic lane change.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669